Democrats' Secret Weapon on the ANWR Alaskan Oil Drilling Debate - The Environmental Impact Statement

Michelle Malkin has the update on the continuing battle on the ANWR drilling. There is this possibility that this drilling bill, after it is passed, could go on for years using a little known not-so-secret weapon, the Environmental Impact Statement or EIS. This is something I'm familiar with in my line of work. If the bill gets passed and the go ahead for oil drilling is given the ok, the next step Democrats would take is to challenge the last EIS that was done in 1987. This old EIS would undoubtedly require another EIS study, and not to mention a host of other possible roadblocks that Democrats will try to the detriment and security of our nation who is at war.

Now, how bad could another EIS study be? EIS is labor-intensive. And, for one, it'll take years to get it done. For a typical highway EIS study it typically takes about 4 years to get it done. But this ANWR is not your average highway project, nor is it a highway project at all. In any EIS, which is a major large scale study, it provides alternatives on how work to be done. But this is subject to appeals and lawsuits to no end.

Other NEPA critics point to prolonged disputes over EISs as hampering the act's effectiveness. H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, says that groups or individuals displeased with a NEPA environmental impact analysis can challenge it in court indefinitely. "The law ... makes it almost impossible for projects to go forward," he says.

George Albright, chief of the Environmental Analysis and Liaison Section of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, agrees with this assertion. "It is an element of the decision-making process that is ripe for misuse," he says.

Also, there is another problem. Courts do not like science and they are not environmental experts. That's one of the biggest problems in NEPA EIS court cases. Courts are not willing to say an agency is making the wrong scientific judgment.

An EIS study really studies just about everything under the sun. Not just a biological study but economic and social impacts as well. If a particular study is missing that's pertinent, back to square one to include that study, too. Therein lies the problem of an EIS getting dragged on for years in this unique battle over the ANWR drilling.

And then we have the timeline criterion for getting an EIS completed where it shouldn't take longer than 5 years. There are horror stories where an EIS seems to drag on and waste time, energy, money and resources just to comply.

Study determined that frequently NEPA takes too long and costs too much,
agencies make decisions before hearing from the public, documents are too long and technical for many people to use, and training for agency officials, particulary senior leadership, is inadequate.

According to many federal agency NEPA liaisons, the EIS process is still frequently viewed as merely a compliance requirement rather than as a tool to effect better decision-making. Because of this, millions of dollars, years of time, and tons of paper have been spent on documents that have little effect on decision-making

This is why a NEPA-EIS would be the Democrats' next "secret" weapon. They can still win the game even if the ANWR drilling bill gets passed. So, don't get smug when this legislature gets passed before Congress. Even if it does allow oil companies to skirt some existing environmental safeguards, EIS is still numero uno when it comes to delaying oil drilling for years on end. If you thought getting through Congress was hard, wait til the Democrats and Enviros get their hands on the EIS legal process.